We drive, they starve.

The corn used to produce the ethanol needed to fill a 12-gallon Prius tank will feed a person for Sudan for six months.

Just something to think about.

Technorati Tags: ethanol, prius, sudan

Inconvenient Holidays: Why We Can’t Fly Anymore 25 May 2007

I’ve been struggling with this one for some time.

I know that flying (jet travel) is mega-bad for the environment. I know that one trip across the United States and back emits more CO2 into the atmosphere than all the driving I do in an entire year. I know that air travel is simply not sustainable. And yet, I persist for the most part (my most recent trip to L.A. was by auto, but that hasn’t been the norm) in clapping my hands over my ears and eyes (along with the majority of the eco-community) and pretending that it is somehow okay to fly, that for some reason the gases and particulates released from a jet that contribute three times as much to global warming as C02 alone, don’t really exist.

But I’m finally forced to climb the pulpit and scream: WE CANNOT FLY ANY LONGER!!!

If we really do give a damn, jet travel is simply out of the question. Yes, this impacts our plans to travel the world. It curtails business travel. But we have telephones for conference calls and our desire for tropical paradise, one would think, is far less important than the need to survive as a species.

It’s inconvenient to not fly any longer, but is it really that big of a deal? Do I give a damn about the planet or not? What about you? Hey, if you have a solution to this seemingly intractable issue, please, chime in - let me know!

Our friend George Monbiot weighs in on this topic in his book “HEAT: How to Stop the Planet Burning”. Here’s what he has to say (and the eco-community has slammed him for this as too many ‘greens’ refuse to believe they may actually have to sacrifice anything at all). You really should read the book as it sets up the following with hard numbers/facts/data that are hard to refute:

“A 90 per cent cut in carbon emissions means the end of distant foreign holidays, unless you are prepared to take a long time getting there. It means that business meetings must take place over the internet or by means video conferences. It means that trans-continental journeys must made by train - and even then not by the fastest trains - or bus. It means that journeys around the world must be reserved for visiting the people you love, and that they will require both slow travel and the saving up of carbon rations. It means the end of shopping trips to New York, parties in Ibiza, second homes in Tuscany and, most painfully for me, political meetings in Porto Alegre - unless you believe that these activities are worth the sacrifice of the biosphere and the lives of the poor. But I urge you to remember that these privations affect a tiny proportion of the world’s people. The reason they seem so harsh is that this tiny proportion almost certainly includes you.

Recognizing that is was possible for a human being to fly; then that it was possible for a human being to fly long distances; then that it was possible for many humans to do so; then that it was possible for YOU to do so, required a series of imaginative leaps. It required the construction by the people of the 20th century of a possible world which did not exist before. No one in Europe ever thought of shopping in New York or visiting friends in Australia before planes allowed them to do so. Recognizing that while it is still possible for a human being to fly, it will no longer be possible for many humans to do so, indeed that it will no longer be possible for YOU to do so, requires a similar series of imaginative efforts. But if it was possible to construct one alternative world, it is surely possible to construct another, and to adjust ourselves to that world (scarcely conceivable as it now seems) just as we adjusted to the other - even less conceivable - existence.

I do not pretend that this will be easy, or that my finding will win me any friends. Those whose freedmos must be curtailed happen to be members of the world’s most powerful classes. Worse still, they happen to be us. The promises we have been made - of tropical sunlight in the dead of winter, of one-week safaris in the Maasai Mara, of the sampling of pleasant fruits and princely delicates throughout the new-found world - have shaped our expectations, the pictures we carry of our future lives. We have come to believe we can do anything. We can do anything. Accepting that we no longer possess the powers of angels or of devils, that the world no longer exists for our delectation, demands that we do something few people in the rich world have done for many years: recognize that progress now depends upon the exercise of few opportunities. . .

. . . I have sought the means of proving otherwise, not least because it would make my task of persuading people to adopt the proposals in this book much easier. But it has become plain to me that long-distance travel, high speed and the curtailment of climate change are not compatible. If you fly, you destroy people’s lives.”

Song o’ the Day is one of my all-time faves, “Burning Airlines” by Brian Eno. Try it, you’ll like it. I promise.

Artwork: 2004 Zoe Charlton

air-travel, climate-change, george-monbiot, global-warming

HEAT Excerpt #23: Biofuels are a BAD IDEA 23 May 2007

From George Monbiot’s well-researched and rather articulate new book, “HEAT: How to Stop the Planet Burning”. (you can grab a copy HERE - directly from the publisher, thus reducing the accumulated ‘carbon value’ of the book as it won’t have to travel to other warehouses):

“The environmentalists who support the wider use of biofuels picture the crops they like best. They see the nodding heads of sunflowers, or the blue blossoms of the linseed plant. They talk of algae which can be grown in desert ponds, or the use of straw and other wastes to produce ethanol. . . But what they will not see - in fact what they flatly and repeatedly refuse to understand - is that a global commodity market selects not the most satisfying vision, but the cheapest commodity. And at present and for the forseeable future the cheapest commodity is palm oil. What this means is that biofuel production is a forumula not only for humanitarian disaster but also for environmental catastrophe.”

Understand, George wants us to find ‘the answers’ just as much, if not worse, than you or I. However, he very much fears putting efforts into schemes that will only set us back, not just a little but a lot.

“In 2005, Friends of the Earth published a report about the impacts of palm oil production:

Between 1985 and 2000, the development of oil-palm plantations was responsible for an estimated 87 per cent of deforestation in Malaysia.

In Sumatra and Borneo, some 4 million hectares of forest has been converted to palm farms. Now a further 6 million hectares is scheduled for clearance in Malaysia, and 16.5 million in Indonesia. Almost all the remaining forest is at risk . . . The orang-utan is liekly to become extinct in the wild. Sumatran rhinos, tigers, gibbons, tapirs, proboscis monkeys and many other species could go the same way. Thousands of indigenous people have been evicted from their lands, and some 500 Indonesians have been tortured when they tried to resist. The entire region is being turned into a vegetable field.

Before oil palms are planted, vast forest trees, containing a much greater store of carbon than the palm trees will ever accumulate, must be felled and burnt. . . A paper published in NATURE estimates that the fires ignited in Indonesia in 1997, the result of felling rainforest trees, released between 13 and 40 per cent as much carbon dioxide as the world’s consumption of fossil fuels. The biodiesel industry has accidentally invented the world’s most carbon-intensive fuel.

Song ‘o the Day: I’m not telling you what it is. Just hit play.

biofuels, climate-change, fossil-fuels, george-monbiot, global warming, malaysia, sumatra, sumatran-rhino

Inconvenient Viewing Habits: On Jason Lee & Being Cable Free 21 May 2007

There are those who don’t watch television because they’re making a statement. Namely, “My mind is too precious to be allowed to rot in front of a t.v. screen.” There are also those who simply don’t have the time to spend five hours per day (still the national average) entirely checked out. Then there are folks like yours truly, who hasn’t had cable since 1993 when I lived in Chico, California at home with my mom. My reason for eschewing the box? I don’t like t.v. shows! It’s that simple! In addition, it isn’t possible to find solid news reporting on t.v., so aside from the nature and history channels, what’s the point? For me, there isn’t one. For me, there’s Netflix.

However.

It’s inconvenient as hell to not have cable.

Why? Because I’m pop-culture illiterate. I’ve never seen “American Idol”. Never watched an episode of “The Sopranos” or “Lost” (check that, I did watch one episode of “Lost” online once out of curiosity but found it less than compelling.). Sure, my electricity bills (and thus my sacred carbon footprint) are lower, but so is my social-IQ. I often find myself unable to contribute to the most common conversations - those where the participants really have no common interests so they talk about t.v. shows to pass the time and forge the temporary illusion of bonding. Outcast and without a tribe, even an illusory one, I do sometimes pine for cable.

So.

So yesterday I used that awkwardly-designed iTunes contraption to download two episodes of “My Name is Earl.” And, while I wasn’t blown away I did find them amusing. I don’t think it works without Jason Lee, however. He’s fantastic. I don’t have a crush on him like I had on Miranda July last week (my crush’s only last one week. sorry miranda. sorry angelina. sorry mr. cheney), but I’ve always liked the guy.

Anyway, the show’s premise, as you likely know, has to do with Earl trying to right every wrong he’s ever committed - crossing each one off his huge list as he goes. I can identify with this. So can you, I’m betting, if you’re at this site (there are two reasons for viewing this site. you’re either a committed eco-warrior or you have a crush on ME. so far, traffic has been equally split between the two.). Each day, we try to figure out how to not commit some of the eco-fouls we committed the day before. And, going through life in a first-world country, it’s awfully difficult to not only do better every day, but to not make new mistakes, to not add new tasks to the “list” (See Tod Brilliant, Hypocrite-Extraordinaire).

After watching Earl do his damndest to do his best, I must say I’ve been reinvigorated to do the same. This morning, I wiped my backside using the “Sheryl Crow” method, using only two sheets of toilet paper in the process (I did waste a bit more soap and water than usual washing up, however). For breakfast, I went outside and harvested some strawberries and ate eggs provided by my friend Jen’s very happy chickens. No joking. These are easy adjustments. From this day forth, like Earl Hickey, I will consult my checklist and strive to reduce my eco-karma. Thanks Jason Lee, star and producer. Thank you, network television and iTunes for working together to show me the light.

Song o’ the Day is a cover song. The The does a blistering version of Hank Williams’ “I Saw the Light”. You should check it out.

american-idol, carbon-footprint, cultural-illiteracy, earl-hickey, inconvenient-life, itunes, jason-lee, my-name-is-earl, sheryl-crow, television

Inconvenient Writing: Computer Vs. Typewriter 19 May 2007

I like to write. I may not be the greatest writer, but cranking out odd bits of fiction is something I enjoy doing. It’s a nice release, similar to sex in that it after you’ve finished, you feel sleepy (this is just a guy thing, right?) but different in that the high lasts longer than four seconds. I’m sure you understand. You write, too, no?

Anyway, the more I write, the more I feel guilty. Why? Because I’ve been writing on a computer and as we all know computers are terrific, unrepentant devourers of electricity. Given this, every page I write contributes to climate change. Were I to do the research, I’m certain I could quantify the exact amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere with every keystroke. It’s probably something like .000000000000000000000000000000000000000212 grams - this is just a quick estimate based on my local mix of power sources.
What’s a boy to do?

The solution, it seems, is to use a good old-fashioned typewriter. And that’s exactly what I’ve done. As of March, I’ve committed myself to doing all creative writing on a typewriter in an effort to reduce my impact. You can see/read the results here or just click the link in the upper corner that says “HOT SEX”. Now, instead of staying up at night on my computer, wasting power not only to juice my eco-unfriendly iMac but also to power an eye-strain reducing lamp, I sit at my manual typewriter outside under a bright blue sky. Yet, in so doing, I move a bit farther away from my ‘paperless office’ ideal. Now, I’m crumbling up balls of paper by the dozen, wasting good trees and chlorine.

*sigh*

It seems that the act of writing is inherently environmentally unfriendly. Can someone propose a decent solution? I’m in a bit of a pickle . . .

Technorati Tags: typewriter, paris-hilton, inconvenient-life, tod-brilliant, climate-change